Monday, June 12, 2017

I spoke to a friend who spent time with Reb Fishele as a bochur. The man's father knew RFH from the Old Country. He always spoke very highly of him. I was the one who informed him on Motzoei Shabbos of the passing. His first words were: He was a Yid who never stopped bemoaning the fact that chibas Eretz Yisroel was torn from the fiber of Haredi society. then he went on to more traditional statements, like the fact that he knew all Sifrei Shu"T. Big gaon in Kabbalah as well. That he worked on all 40 Sifrei Rishonim that were published by the late Rabbi Chaim Moshe HaCohen Blau. Then he made a statement that most of you would not be כלים for, so I won't repeat it. I found it very telling. That a traditional Chassidic talmid chochomgaon of major proportions was to be remembered like that, first and foremost. I guess we know why that happened. As a former talmid of his son in Spinka Cheder I suppose I benefited from him as well. At least via kli sheni.I suppose I should post this slready. It's been weeks. I can always add on later.

154 comments:

Rumor has it that in his early days in Brooklyn reb fishel walked in the satmar shul on Bedford ave and gave shulem alecim to the SR, he asked him what is your occupation? he answered I'm learning! the SR (not knowing him from before) told him but you must find some work to sustain yourself, with that we lost rebbe fishel.

why is it weired he was indeed an exceptional Talmud chucham, (he received the "hoyrua" from the kapisher ruv), and his "bemoaning the fact that chibas Eretz Yisroel was torn from the fiber of Haredi society." is correct to in my eyes, if I look back to what it was only here in America.

Not quite, rebbe fishel lived two houses down from the SR, he had an exceptional library of seforim and the SR used to send over borrowing some rare seforim. he was a card carrying 'librarian' of reb fishels library so to speak.

who's loss are you? obviously reb fishel knew his place "Williamsburg" not union city or kiryat sanz, he looked completely out of place "and out of his learning curve" with the clean shaven agudistan at the siyum hashas.

help me out here anyone, the constitution which they claim Jewish capitalist helped constructing, does not forbid a president to be rich! yet the Torah (the portion attributed to Yisroy! the goy) asks for שונאי בצע (no greedy people to apply) isn't that racist or anti semitic or something ?

It's not that I don't like what you said, but only that you simply have no idea what you are talking about. A few examples:

Rav Michoel Ber was referring to bringing Rav Yonashan Steif into the picture.

Both Rav Yonashan and the Pupa Rav supported an eruv in Williamsburg.

It is laughable to derive much from Rav Michoel Ber's letter other than he simply did not want the responsibility on his shoulders. Nevertheless, he spent much time thinking about the construction of an eruv in Williamsburg, so much so that he even drew up maps of its possible boundaries.

There is no difference between eruvin and any other halachic issue. Every rav has a right to do as he sees fit. There is no consensus needed. How much more so regarding a rav of RFH stature.

Both Rav Yonashan and the Pupa Rav supported an eruv in Williamsburg. "

Exactly that's my point the may have wanted it but the knew that the Buck doesn't stop by them, they knew when they sat by meetings on it by the SR and the rebbe listened but didn't respond to them, and that was enough to them not to pursue it, know one knew better the SR z"l than Reb Yonasan!!!, that this question belongs to a Rav a rebbe. not to lomdim שבכל דור ודור עומדם עלינו.

And know one knew much better the SR than the pupar ruv z"l (my mohel MbP certified) who who became a dayan in the city of satmar under SR auspicious, the SR incuraged him and send with him 10 buchrim of his, to open a yeshiva in Pupa! (where it wasn't welcome) the puper Rav wanted to settle in Canada, and the SR told him you belong here in Williamsburg, there is many interesting insightful arguments between them, and to me both where amused by it, and respected each other in their authority he never stopped talking of SR dadlis, the pupar ruv was the spiritual descendant of the Baal keren l'Dovid! and the erev saga started there! don't get me started on that.

"they knew when they sat by meetings on it by the SR and the rebbe listened but didn't respond to them"

Fiction, there never was such a meeting regarding Willamsburg. Stop rewriting history.

The next part of your paragraph is discombobulated. Rav Yonashan was a rav. The Pupa rav was a rav. So they had a right and a chiyuv to state their opinion regarding an eruv. Eruvin does not belong to a rebbe, but only to a rav.

They can say what they want in Ish Chamudos, but there never was an asifa. It is just fiction. All the stories that they claim don't follow, and were clearly concocted lately (I can prove it). It was the Shotzer Rebbe who stated that the Satmar Rebbe mentioned the issue of a Bais Din kavuah when he went to him. The following was written by the Shotzer Rebbe in HaMaor תשרי תשט"ו

Klausenburg-Square-Boyan The "troika" who fancied for themselves "Williamsburg" The Jerusalem of America", but instead they fled like the Palestinians did, are now trying to build an invisible wall (eyeRUV) around "Jerusalem". Hello Franz Kafka?

I left it out deliberately וכו there is pages of letters before this letter (as mentioned earlier in the comments) as proof that he reb Michel Ber z"l not in the capacity as ruv dyan or costodian of Williamsburg vs. real local rabbunim some who happened to be "rebbe's" to, was deeply involved behind the scene so to speak, and conceded to the local authority with grace as a graceful person he was, and went on with his other dealings with their unique relationship

And I guess he colluded with gelbman who writes the same, plus that reb yonasan was at the meeting with reb micul Ber and that all conceded to SR, which was a fact for 40 years atleast, and by the way do you have any paper trail at all of reb yonasan's opinion on this? or its your opinion you iterate verses the facts on the ground.

Reb yonasan an SR traded in halachas, SR asked him to up grade and start saying halal pesach eve, RY countered SR should up grade by starting to eat in the succoh on the 8th day, (they both gave in, SR to somehow..) SR asked him to accept shitas rabbeni tam! he gave in on motzei shabos, SR gave in on erev shabos! SR forbade weiner machine matzos, but he ate them after pesach, when it came to eiruv in Williamsburg he knew this is a decree of a Ruv A Rebbe! those where the days.

Reb yonasan an SR traded in halachas, SR asked him to up grade and start saying halal pesach eve, RY countered SR should up grade by starting to eat in the succoh on the 8th day, (they both gave in, SR to somehow..) SR asked him to accept shitas rabbeni tam! he gave in on motzei shabos, SR gave in on erev shabos! SR forbade weiner machine matzos, but he ate them after pesach, when it came to eiruv in Williamsburg he knew this is a decree of a Ruv A Rebbe! those where the days.

Reb MB writes and begs Rav Eisenstadt that he should "convince" reb yonasan on it! RMB was close to RY as a brother, and very close to the SR why the back the channel of Rabbi Eisenstadt? ask your self.

RMB was clearly than for the eiruv, why will his children make up a meeting with the SR which resulted in defeating his goal?

Why is he writing to Rabbi Eisenstadt, apologetically and asks him out of this whole controversy, RMB wasn't the faithful type, and neither are his children, what does the shatzer know about this.

Williamsburg had a beth din קבוע enough it was called central rabbinical congress of the USA and Canada, they had plenty of authority! the SR was the head of the CRC and as such "he" didn't want to be the custodian responsible of the chilul shabos in essence and in spirit a large city eiruv will create!!! do "you" ???.

That baal dimyon has no ne'emanus at all. Besides for which, it's comical when a Satamarer chooses Rav Moshe over the Chazon Ish. As usual it depends on when their opinion fits your agenda. You guys have no shame.

"And I guess he colluded with gelbman who writes the same, plus that reb yonasan was at the meeting with reb micul Ber and that all conceded to SR, which was a fact for 40 years atleast, and by the way do you have any paper trail at all of reb yonasan's opinion on this? or its your opinion you iterate verses the facts on the ground."

Your a comic. Gelbman is the biggest redactor of history, in history. There was no meeting period. It is fiction concocted after the fact, and only lately. Yes there is a paper trail regarding Rav Yonashan, it's called teshuvos. Read them, they may educate you regarding the truth. However, but I doubt that you would change your mind. It's simple, you made up you mind, and do not want to be confused with the facts.

"I left it out deliberately וכו there is pages of letters before this letter (as mentioned earlier in the comments) as proof that he reb Michel Ber z"l not in the capacity as ruv dyan or costodian of Williamsburg vs. real local rabbunim some who happened to be "rebbe's" to, was deeply involved behind the scene so to speak, and conceded to the local authority with grace as a graceful person he was, and went on with his other dealings with their unique relationship "

Irrelevant, there are pages upon pages of letters from Willamsburg rabbanim supporting an eruv there.

"I left it out deliberately וכו there is pages of letters before this letter (as mentioned earlier in the comments) as proof that he reb Michel Ber z"l not in the capacity as ruv dyan or costodian of Williamsburg vs. real local rabbunim some who happened to be "rebbe's" to, was deeply involved behind the scene so to speak, and conceded to the local authority with grace as a graceful person he was, and went on with his other dealings with their unique relationship "

Of course you left it out deliberately. Only because it proves that Rav Michol Ber was extremely involved with the issue of establishing an eruv in Willamsburg, notwithstanding his reluctance to be the one to take responsibility for it.

In any case, your arguments are empty. Who cares if Rav Michol Ber was a rav or not. Many rabbanim in Willamsburg supported an eruv.

And know one knew much better the SR than the pupar ruv z"l (my mohel MbP certified) who who became a dayan in the city of satmar under SR auspicious, the SR incuraged him and send with him 10 buchrim of his, to open a yeshiva in Pupa! "

another barrel of satmar liesthe Pupa ruv was dayan in satmar before satmar ruv the baal veyoel moshe became the illegitimate run in satmar,Pupa ruvs uncle who was the the last legitimate ruv in Satmar made hism dayan years earlierIn pupa he succeeded his fathers rabunas and a large yeshiva with hundereds of bucherimwhat a bunch of hogwash???

These are just some of the proofs that the stories in Ish Chamudos regarding eruvin are tall tales:

They state (Yalkut Michtavim, pp. 34-35; see also Ish Chamudos p. 420) that many people claimed to have heard the following story from Rav Avraham Chaim Spitzer shlita. In the year 1949 or 1950, the Satmar rebbe was at a bris in the Yeshivah of Nitra in Mount Kisco, NY. Later the Satmar rebbe locked himself in the Yeshivah’s seforim room with Rav Michoel Dov and debated the merits of a (Williamsburg) eruv the entire night. Rav Spitzer relates that at approximately three o’clock he awoke and overheard the conversation. After some debate regarding a Tosfos in Eruvin, the Satmar rebbe declared that he would never permit an eruv here (Williamsburg) since roughly sixty years ago an eruv was established (in Manhattan by Rav Yehoshua Seigel zt”l) with approbations from Gedolei Yisroel that utilized bridges (elevated train tracks). These elevated tracks were later demolished, but nevertheless people continued to carry (in Manhattan). Following this, the Satmar rebbe repeated that he would never agree to an eruv here (Williamsburg). They add that Rav Spitzer claimed that he remembers the story as if it happened today. This tale in Yalkut Michtavim is cited as primary testimony that the Satmar rebbe was opposed to eruvin anywhere in New York.These are the facts:• This story is pure fiction. Rav Seigel utilized the natural riverbanks for three sides of the boundaries of the eruv and on the fourth side, the Third Avenue El. The only mechitzah that the Satmar rebbe could have been referring to that was later demolished was the Third Avenue El. However, the Third Avenue El was not demolished prior to 1950 as this story charges but actually August 3, 1955, as reported by the New York Times. Just as this fundamental tale regarding the Satmar rebbe in Yalkut Michtavim is a fabrication so too all stories contained therein should be treated as such.• Way after this supposed story happened it was well known that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York. Even in 1956 and 1959 the Shatzer rebbe, published in his sefer Kuntres Tikkun Eruvin Manhattan that Rav Michoel Dov supported an eruv in New York.• Even after this supposed story took place Rav Michoel Dov was included on a kol korei of rabbanim [1960] who supported a Manhattan eruv.• Rav Michoel Dov wrote a letter (Toras Chemed, siman 3, dated September 8, 1951) in support of an eruv even after this supposed story happened. Clearly he continued to support an eruv after this imaginary story happened.

They state (Ish Chamudos, p. 420), without attribution, that at a conference of rabbanim regarding establishing an eruv in Williamsburg, the Satmar rebbe expressed his objection to an eruv. After hearing the Satmar rebbe’s opposition, Rav Michoel Dov, then and there, acceded to his wishes.These are the facts:• Even the Yalkut Michtavim, which has added many fictional rabbanim conferences regarding the Willamsburg eruv, never claimed that Rav Michoel Dov participated in any assembly regarding eruvin. The first fictional conference mentioned in Yalkut Michtavim in which the Satmar rebbe participated was around late 1957 to 1958, and they did not mention that Rav Michoel Dov was present. (It’s important to remember, as well, that Rav Michoel Dov was no longer alive by late 1957.) Clearly this conference, as stated in Ish Chamudos, is fiction.• Even after this supposed conference took place, Rav Michoel Dov was included on a kol korei of rabbanim [1960] who supported a Manhattan eruv.• In the allegation above, they claim that Rav Michoel Dov was apprised by the Satmar rebbe himself, somewhere between 1949 and 1950, that he objected to a Willamsburg eruv. Why would Rav Michoel Dov need to accede to the Satmar rebbe’s wishes at this later conference of rabbanim if he previously desisted from being involved with eruvin?

They state (Ish Chamudos, p. 420), without attribution, that one of Rav Michoel Dov’s talmidim was driving his rebbe from Mount Kisco to New York, and in middle of the journey, Rav Michoel Dov saw that a bridge [elevated track] that could have been used for an eruv [through pi tikra] was being removed. At that time, Rav Michoel Dov acknowledged that the Satmar rebbe was correct when he declared that since in America they are constantly altering the infrastructure, we cannot use these structures for the boundaries of an eruv.These are the facts:• It is curious that the editor of Ish Chamudos left out the name of this talmid, and I think I know why. This story was originally published in Di Tzeitung (November 26, 1999 p. 45),[4] and the talmid’s name was given as Rav Libush Gottesman. However, in Chai Anochi LeOlam (p. 72) Rav Libush was cited as declaring that this story never happened. What is even more telling is the fact that Rav Libush was quoted in Ish Chamudos ― that his rebbe gave him the responsibility to write a protocol of all the shitos that would allow an eruv to be established in Brooklyn ― on the same page where this tale is mentioned, but yet they failed to associate him with the story. Clearly the editor knew that this story is fictional, but nevertheless chose to mention it to further his own personal agenda against eruvin.• Even after this supposed story took place, Rav Michoel Dov was included on a kol korei of rabbanim [1960] who supported a Manhattan eruv.

The biography Ish Chamudos (at least regarding the issue of eruvin) is a redaction of history and is an embarrassment to Rav Michoel Dov’s name. As can be discerned from the above, Rav Michoel Dov considered the establishment of a Brooklyn eruv of extreme importance and campaigned to bring his plan to fruition. Instead of embracing this fact, the writers of this book capitulated to the current trend to be anti-eruv and rewrote their ancestor’s true desires.

Hagoan Hamekubal elokai Reb Fishele paskened more shailos in Williamsburgh in one night then Satmar ruv paskened in Yerushaliem, for all his 30 years having that title ruv in YerushaliemUnless being a posek does not talk to your am haratzher kupThe Chasam sofer was not ruv in Pressburgh for his fund raising skillsit was his dvar hashem zu halacha that made him the godal hadoir

"Anonymous B. Wilhelm said...Reb yonasan an SR traded in halachas, SR asked him to up grade and start saying halal pesach eve, RY countered SR should up grade by starting to eat in the succoh on the 8th day, (they both gave in, SR to somehow..) SR asked him to accept shitas rabbeni tam! he gave in on motzei shabos, SR gave in on erev shabos! SR forbade weiner machine matzos, but he ate them after pesach, when it came to eiruv in Williamsburg he knew this is a decree of a Ruv A Rebbe! those where the days."In which fish market did they trade and barter?what a juvenile talk to slap on two mature adult people

Dovid Saturday, July 15, 2017 11:52:00 PM "And just for the record Rav Yonashan was a rav, and so was the Pupa Rav."

Yes indeed they were Rabbunim who didn't bow for RMB pressure when he tried to convince RY with his לומדות through an intermediate, but of course they weren't convinced, there is no written פסק or paper trail otherwise I think, only a letter that RMB was "trying" to involve RY for political reasons.. in his letter he writes:

The eiruv saga in Williamsburg got rekindled after 40 years, when the local zonings there where changed, and the big honchos who invested in "new Williamsburg" real estate, started to use "the eiruv" as a selling point.. which paid of to them handsomely.. think¡¿

I would consider RY Steif and the Puper Rav z"l as one of the biggest "chasidim" who regularly consulted with SR came to his טיש regularly, and never sided in anything against his will, to think that these two tzadikim will side against him on Eiruv! is absurd.

The SR asked RY who came regularly to his prayers why are you here? don't you have a congregation to attend to! RY quipped; "I'm on 'urlob' Vacation now" once SR asked him when he saw him "again you on vacation" ?, even more so the puper ruv, who lived most of his life in the perimeter of the SR, but was considered a "belzer chusid" in the eyes of the belzer rebbe RA a"h, Therefore out of respect the SR didn't "accept" him as a "cusid" although he was one with the full meaning of the word, he to would sit for long hours at SR טיש'ן and wouldn't leave town or returning from out of town without his blessing, of course he wouldn't contradict the SR, it's childish to think differently.

The בשר כשר industry in america belonged to individuals and rabbi's who controlled it like the Mafia did, they where actually chazir treif, when the ungarishe came here and start making inroads to break the בשר כשר industry of America, many "beneficiaries" of the "kosher-treif" meat industry were understandable up set.

Rabbi Tibor Stern (a great personality) told me he tried to visit the SR in Miami Beach but he was turned down, what he didn't tell me Thathe who defended Hebrew National in the the US Court's when the "government" sued them for selling Trief! Slandered the than Sigeter Ruv in writings and the Batterer ruv, for not being good enough!, in the the end he z"l was and stayed the "problem" for Hebrew National.

"With the departure of Hebrew National’s longtime in-house rabbi, Tibor Stern, who died in January, and the decision to seek outside kosher supervision, the company is showing signs of regaining the confidence of some corners of the kosher community."

In 1949 harav Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt zt”l, started to establish an eruv that included the whole Manhattan,the Shatzer Rebbe, z"l was on that committee, that eiruv doesn't exist anymore, but years later after its destruction people didn't know that they where still carrying on as if it still existed, Why? asked the SR the Shatzer Rebbe? Isn't it because there isn't a bet-din קבוע in our community with responsibilities to inform the masses to avoid continues chillul shabos? the shatzer tried to counter because there is no bet-din קבוע therefore you could establish your own kosher "questionable" slaughter house with out the bet-din's oversight ! לכבוד עצמו הוא דורש

"In 1901 when the rabbanim Hagaon Harav Tzvi Yechezkel Michelzon zt”l, one of the main rabbanim of Warsaw, and Hagaon Harav Yosef Levenstein zt”l, Av Bais Din of Serotzk, agreed that halachically it was permissible to establish an eruv there (see Chavalim BaNe’imim, 3:17 and Tirosh VaYitzhar, siman 73).

In 1905, an eruv was established by Hagaon Harav Yehoshua Seigel zt”l, the Chief Rabbi of Kehilas Yisroel and one of the most noteworthyposkim of that era living in New York (Otzar Zichronasi, pp. 118, 352). At the time, Rav Seigel published a kuntres, Eruv V’Hotzaah, in which he established the halachic underpinning for an eruv in New York, guidelines that are still pertinent today."

On that basis of strictly "halacha" RY z"l wasn't oppose, on all other squally "halachas" involved in practicality to actual build it and maintain it which includes informing the weekly status of the eiruv, meaning every Jew in that perimeter mosaic of the tri-state are should be informed of the eiruv status, and if he wasn't inform who's responsibility is it ? that among many other questions muted the issue.

PS: so far I don't find you more authentic than gelbman, stay focused.

exactly c"s was ruv in Pressburg. and reb fishel who woke up 40 years late that he is ruv in "Williamsburg" is not, Williamsburg did fine and will do fine without reb fishel 10,001 pe'sak'im, even the Klausenburger's don't obey his 'pesukim' .

I'll not debate with you on comparing personal characters traits of each 'individual' individually. However he was from munkatch, and got his semicha from Kapusher Ruv a true munkatcher cusid, that renders him a Munkatcher.

you don't need to be a ruv at at all let alone "all combined" to know "hilcus eiruv" RMB wasn't a Rav at all and he knew it pretty well, we know reb fishel well and what's behind it, he didn't invent anything new about the eiruv in NY its an old topic, however I haven't noticed that any one gave him the authority in Williamsburg where there is an established, התאחדות הרבנים. involved in thousands of local issues, he "maybe" had authority to change his local kehila but not to impose (or confuse) an entire established community, he wasn't a "practicing" Rav either, this sounds more obstruction then any other ehrlucher ruv I know did, perhaps he wouldn't paskun so much, or wouldn't be such "great" Talmud cuchem than "all combined" (tipush einer) all would be better of.

"So I know that there was such (numerous) meeting, and what shtzer rebbe has a secret."

It is difficult to answer you for many reasons. You constantly change names, and use sock puppets. You constantly argue half-truths. Your writing style is typical of Satamer newspapers. Full of half truths and all over the place. I suggest that you take a job there (or maybe you are already did).

In any case, there never was a claim until lately that there was a meeting regarding an eruv in Willamsburg. This is proof that all these claims are after the fact. Besides for which, these claims are obviated by the written teshuvos.

Right, this is the difference between Kluasenburg and Satmar, a dyan does not need to follow the rebbe. However, you are lying regarding eruvin. The Klausenburger did not object to an eruv. In any case, everyone in Klausenberg asked Rav Fishel sheilos.

"Reb MB writes and begs Rav Eisenstadt that he should "convince" reb yonasan on it! RMB was close to RY as a brother, and very close to the SR why the back the channel of Rabbi Eisenstadt? ask your self.

RMB was clearly than for the eiruv, why will his children make up a meeting with the SR which resulted in defeating his goal?

Why is he writing to Rabbi Eisenstadt, apologetically and asks him out of this whole controversy, RMB wasn't the faithful type, and neither are his children, what does the shatzer know about this."

What a silly argument. RMBW was just recommending that RTE should bring in RYS because he considered RYS the right person for the job. RTE was not as close RYS as was RMBW.

The Shatzer wrote about it at the time, not like all these revisionist who are johnny-come-lately.

"Williamsburg had a beth din קבוע enough it was called central rabbinical congress of the USA and Canada, they had plenty of authority! the SR was the head of the CRC and as such "he" didn't want to be the custodian responsible of the chilul shabos in essence and in spirit a large city eiruv will create!!! do "you" ???."

So why did the Satmar rebbe suggest that this would be an issue to the Shatzer rebbe? The answer is simple because this was one of the arguments suggested by the litvshe rabbanim, and the Satmar rebbe threw at the Shotzer all their arguments.

This issue is where you Satmarer fall for the Bick ruse. These arguments are not from Chasiddim. All large cities had eruvin in the heim why should NYC be any different? You guys fell hook, line, and sinker for Rav Bick's bubbe meises.

"exactly c"s was ruv in Pressburg. and reb fishel who woke up 40 years late that he is ruv in "Williamsburg" is not, Williamsburg did fine and will do fine without reb fishel 10,001 pe'sak'im"Chazal called you and your ilk MIN (apikoras),heomar mie ahanie lie rabonan.....to talk such disgraceful language on 10.000 pesokim in devar hashen zu halacha is such a deep fargrebtkiet and kefiras betoras hashem.....

"involved in thousands of local issues, "thousand of golden flow milk and juice cartons..did Reb Fishele have to ask Itzu glick how to pasken?Half of Satmar dont follow CRC for their own reasons, but did reb fishele had to call Itzu everyday how to learn the sefer hamichtam on Shabos??

L"However he was from munkatch, and got his semicha from Kapusher Ruv a true munkatcher cusid, that renders him a Munkatcher.He was a spinker by birth, and all his life you heard chakal yitzchok only ..

"The eiruv saga in Williamsburg got rekindled after 40 years, when the local zonings there where changed, and the big honchos who invested in "new Williamsburg" real estate, started to use "the eiruv" as a selling point.. which paid of to them handsomely.. think¡¿"

"I would consider RY Steif and the Puper Rav z"l as one of the biggest "chasidim" who regularly consulted with SR came to his טיש regularly, and never sided in anything against his will, to think that these two tzadikim will side against him on Eiruv! is absurd."

Yea, the where the biggest Chasidim, and I have a bridge for sale. In any case, the Satmar rebbe was not opposed to eruvin. All the claims otherwise are fiction and historically don't follow.

"In 1949 harav Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt zt”l, started to establish an eruv that included the whole Manhattan,the Shatzer Rebbe, z"l was on that committee, that eiruv doesn't exist anymore, but years later after its destruction people didn't know that they where still carrying on as if it still existed, Why? asked the SR the Shatzer Rebbe? Isn't it because there isn't a bet-din קבוע in our community with responsibilities to inform the masses to avoid continues chillul shabos? the shatzer tried to counter because there is no bet-din קבוע therefore you could establish your own kosher "questionable" slaughter house with out the bet-din's oversight ! לכבוד עצמו הוא דורש"

You see this is where your tall tales falls apart, because it doesn't follow. It would be prudent of you to stop shooting from the hip. Then again, you are a typical specimen of the tale spinners in your culture. Tell a lie enough times and your minions will believe it. RTE's eruv was not realized until 1962, therefore, your entire pshat and lumdos is false. When the Shotzer rebbe came to RYT it was to get his haskamah to establish an eruv.

"On that basis of strictly "halacha" RY z"l wasn't oppose, on all other squally "halachas" involved in practicality to actual build it and maintain it which includes informing the weekly status of the eiruv, meaning every Jew in that perimeter mosaic of the tri-state are should be informed of the eiruv status, and if he wasn't inform who's responsibility is it ? that among many other questions muted the issue."

"exactly c"s was ruv in Pressburg. and reb fishel who woke up 40 years late that he is ruv in "Williamsburg" is not, Williamsburg did fine and will do fine without reb fishel 10,001 pe'sak'im, even the Klausenburger's don't obey his 'pesukim'."

So much narishkeit. First of all, there was one main rav in Pressburg, but Willy does not only have one rav. Therefore, every rav has a right and a responsibility to establish an eruv. Second, most of RFH pesakim are followed in Klausenberg. Stop concocting up stories.

"you don't need to be a ruv at at all let alone "all combined" to know "hilcus eiruv" RMB wasn't a Rav at all and he knew it pretty well, we know reb fishel well and what's behind it, he didn't invent anything new about the eiruv in NY its an old topic, however I haven't noticed that any one gave him the authority in Williamsburg where there is an established, התאחדות הרבנים. involved in thousands of local issues, he "maybe" had authority to change his local kehila but not to impose (or confuse) an entire established community, he wasn't a "practicing" Rav either, this sounds more obstruction then any other ehrlucher ruv I know did, perhaps he wouldn't paskun so much, or wouldn't be such "great" Talmud cuchem than "all combined" (tipush einer) all would be better of."

More nariskeit. You don't know hilchos eruvin from a hole in a wall. Eruvin is complicated, and the fact that RMBW new it well does not suggest otherwise. There was no rav in our times who had such a mastery of the sugyos and the teshuvos regarding eruvin, as RFH. Even the short letter he wrote supporting the original BP eruv, regarding the mitzva of eruvin, has fascinating info, and demonstrates his gaonus.

Eruvin does not belong to any rav or kehilla. No rav needs to be given the authority in any town to build an eruv, just like he does not need to be given the authority to build a mikvah. Please get this through your thick skull.

It would be comical if it wasn't so sad if you really believe what you said, RFH was not a practicing rav. Your pathetic.

"perhaps he wouldn't paskun so much, or wouldn't be such "great" Talmud cuchem than "all combined" (tipush einer) all would be better of."

You see, you don't know what you don't know. The only tipshus is that you involve yourself in things that you don't know much about. You have no idea what Rav Fishel added to the issue of large city eruvin. From the the proofs that he cited regarding halacha kdivrei hameikil in regards to mechitzos to the mare mekomos that he unearthed regarding the number of mechitzos needed. He was unparalleled in our times.

"Yes indeed they were Rabbunim who didn't bow for RMB pressure when he tried to convince RY with his לומדות through an intermediate, but of course they weren't convinced, there is no written פסק or paper trail otherwise I think, only a letter that RMB was "trying" to involve RY for political reasons.. in his letter he writes:"

What are you talking about, there is a lengthy teshuvah from RYS allowing an eruv.

"you don't need to be a ruv at at all let alone "all combined" to know "hilcus eiruv" RMB wasn't a Rav at all and he knew it pretty well, we know reb fishel well and what's behind it, he didn't invent anything new about the eiruv in NY its an old topic,"

Oh, if hilchos eruvin was so simple why didn't the SR know it off the top of his head. I cite as evidence the letter from Hershel Weber. He had to come back a few times until he got a very simple common answer. [This follows what Rav Breisch (Chelkas Yaakov) declared, the SR specialized in uncommon halachos; so I guess eruvin was just too common.]

RMDBW and his crew must of have extra time to examine all the bridges and infrastructures before each shabos, and if a question arises, to collect the bet-din before shabos to examine and to agree on the שאלה and to inform the 6 million jews of NYS before shabos on their conclusion.

כותל מזרחי said...D: "Rav Michoel Dov was included on a kol korei of rabbanim.

RMDBW and his crew must of have extra time to examine all the bridges and infrastructures before each shabos,You can make lietzunas as much as you want, But there are manuscripts of RMBW sketches of some MTA lines.... that were relevant for the eiruvIn New York city Bridges and tunnels dont get demolished on a weekly basis..you are a letz and a shotah...BTWwas Satmar ruv in the matzoh bakery under his hashgocha for 12 hours daily from chanukah till erev pesach????

Like a robot you quote people and personalities who permitted and wanted the eiruv (even that SR himself wanted it, they say) So why?? didn't "they all" do it? what did they want from "him" his הסכמה his topographic knowledge? why non of these forces did it for 40 years, the question isn't who didn't agree with the halach ? but rather why did they all waited so long? Did they wanted "him" to do it for "them" even if he didn't wanted it?

regarding Satmar Ruvhe never said nohis closest aide Reb Yossel Ashkenazi claims he did want a eiruv, why did he say that??he was not a Aroni, or a lefty, he was from the bnie yoel faction of Satmar...Just answer that .....Why did Reb Chezkel Roth who was handpicked from Yerushaliem by Satmar ruv to be Dayan in Satmar NY ,(I think before the stroke) why does he claim Satmar ruv was for the eiruv?He is not a Aroni, he went to the Barclays Zali parade , signed a kol koreh that the Belzer ruv is the biggest heretic since Yeruvom... what more party line rightwing satmar can you getWhy is he saying that Satmar ruv was for the eirev??Just answer that....

"RMDBW and his crew must of have extra time to examine all the bridges and infrastructures before each shabos, and if a question arises, to collect the bet-din before shabos to examine and to agree on the שאלה and to inform the 6 million jews of NYS before shabos on their conclusion."

Absolute stupidity. That's why rabbanim have mashgichim. Did the rabbanim who give hechsherim on meat go every day?

ושמעתי ממרן רבינו הגאון הגדול ר' יואל טייטלבוים שליט"א אבדק"ק סאטמאר, שאמר הכוונה שעל ידי טירדתו בגירסא אי אפשר לו להשגיח כראוי על העירוב אם לא נתקלקלו, ואולי נעשה איזה פירצה וכיוצא בזה ויש לחוש למכשול ח"ו, על כן היה מונע מזה, עד כאן דבריו הנעימים. ע"כ This proves nothing, and is typical of Satmar style arguments. As a matter of fact his pirush on Zichru Toras Moshe was written prior to his teshuvah and his letter to the Shatzer rebbe. This proves that he either was not concerned with the Satmar rebbes opinion or he believed that the SR would not have an issue with an eruv.

"Like a robot you quote people and personalities who permitted and wanted the eiruv (even that SR himself wanted it, they say) So why?? didn't "they all" do it? what did they want from "him" his הסכמה his topographic knowledge? why non of these forces did it for 40 years, the question isn't who didn't agree with the halach ? but rather why did they all waited so long? Did they wanted "him" to do it for "them" even if he didn't wanted it?"

No one says the SR wanted an eruv, but he was definitely not opposed to one. All the other rabbanim wanted and actively tried to establish an eruv, but because of the need to erect tzuras hapesachim (at that point in time) they could not do so easily. All eruvin in America that were mentioned up until then, where making use of existing structures.

No you do have koach. You posted many comments under different names, probably more than I did.

Its more likely that you don't have what to answer when I lay bare your lies. E.g. your revisionist argument: "In 1949 harav Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt zt”l, started to establish an eruv that included the whole Manhattan,the Shatzer Rebbe, z"l was on that committee, that eiruv doesn't exist anymore, but years later after its destruction people didn't know that they where still carrying on as if it still existed, Why? asked the SR the Shatzer Rebbe? Isn't it because there isn't a bet-din קבוע in our community with responsibilities to inform the masses to avoid continues chillul shabos? the shatzer tried to counter because there is no bet-din קבוע therefore you could establish your own kosher "questionable" slaughter house with out the bet-din's oversight ! לכבוד עצמו הוא דורש"

To which I answered: You see this is where your tall tales falls apart, because it doesn't follow. It would be prudent of you to stop shooting from the hip. Then again, you are a typical specimen of the tale spinners in your culture. Tell a lie enough times and your minions will believe it. RTE's eruv was not realized until 1962, therefore, your entire pshat and lumdos is false. When the Shotzer rebbe came to RYT it was to get his haskamah to establish an eruv.

if hilchos eruvin was so simple why didn't the SR know itif hilchos eruvin was so simple why didn't the SR know itif hilchos eruvin was so simple why didn't the SR know itif hilchos eruvin was so simple why didn't the SR know itif hilchos eruvin was so simple why didn't the SR know itif hilchos eruvin was so simple why didn't the SR know it continue.. until you run of breadth.

Best answer will win you a lifetime seat in the Troika eiruv committee, hurry! and a box chuk-full-of-shatzar matzoth kneidlich

In 1949, the Amshinover Rebbe zt"l urged Hagaon Harav Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt zt”l to establish an eruv that included the whole Manhattan. Rav Eisenstadt spent days investigating the Manhattan waterfront and concluded that it was bounded by man-made walls [mechitzos b’y’dai adam] and an eruv could be established (Minchas Tzvi, siman 4).

In 1949, the Amshinover Rebbe zt"l urged Hagaon Harav Rav Tzvi Eisenstadt zt”l to establish an eruv that included the whole Manhattan. Rav Eisenstadt spent days investigating the Manhattan waterfront and concluded that it was bounded by man-made walls [mechitzos b’y’dai adam] and an eruv could be established (Minchas Tzvi, siman 4).

when there was an existential threat in N.Y. over MbP Williamsburg Rabbinical organizations their Rabbis and leaders where out front fighting to abolish the Gezira! I haven't heard much of your newly discovered "uncomplicated" gedoli Williamsburg. להטיב לא יודעים

10,000 mamas pushing carriages on Lee ave. to the shviger shabos after noon, or pesach after the Seder going home.. before you know it Lee ave and Bedford ave. must be closed off to vehicle traffic shabos it's dangerous says NYPD, the goyim scream Gevald! the toddlers (first) will scream back SHABOS!!!! you know the rest.

Hershel Weber had to come back a few times until he got the genius answer that the roads need to be mefulash and shishim ribo is dependent on the street. These are issues that anyone who learnt the inyan could have answered on the spot. Inyanei Orach Chaim was not his strong point.

I guess you are not capable of understanding what RYS meant. The teshuvah was written about Manhattan, and he simply meant that each neighborhood of Manhattan can establish an eruv independently according to all. E.g. Lower East Side of Manhattan, upper Manhattan.

Stam narish. Rav Fishel was not a Klausenberger Chasid. As an aside, the Pupa rav the Sharmesher rav, did not differ with Rabbeinu Yoel because they considered him Gadol Hador, but only because they where petrified to go against his edicts.

Get New Posts via Email (no internet required)

Has this blog changed your opinion of Lubavitch?

Subscribe To Blog

About Me

א יונגערמאן אין עולם הזה trying to do what's right. The purpose of this blog was to provide a counter opinion to the Chabad bashing that is so prevalent in blogosphere. I hope I've accomplished that objective. This is the blog for you if you have a decent knowledge of Jewish history and current events.